The Court modified a Labour Court award rejecting reinstatement for an illegally terminated daily wage worker. Applying the principle that reinstatement is not automatic for such workers, the Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 1,00,000.
Compensation enhanced from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 1,00,000 payable within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:5420]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13501/2010
Vijendra Mali Son Of Shri Hajari Lal, Village Khajurwada, Post Karsoli, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Nonepresent |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr.Kapil Prakash Sharma, AAG with Mr.Ashutosh Udawat |
| Mr.Prateek Saxena | |
| Mr.VijayPathak |
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
06/02/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:5420]
[CW-13501/2010]
(2 of 6)
the respondents on 22.08.1988 and he continued to work till 15.08.1990 and on 16.08.1990, his services were orally terminated, and neither any notice nor any payment of compensation was made to him. Such act of the respondents has resulted in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 (for short, "the Act of 1947"). The aforesaid action of the respondents was assailed by the workman before the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute, the statement of claim submitted by the petitioner was allowed with the finding of the fact that his services were terminated in violation of the provisions contained under Section 25-F of the Act of 1947.
(3 of 6) [CW-13501/2010]
[2025:RJ-JP:5420]
25F of the Act of 1947, it is not necessary that the relief of reinstatement be given as a matter of right.
177 , taking the trend further, the Supreme Court inter alia held as under in para 33 and 34:-
“33. It is clear from the reading of the aforesaid judgments that the ordinary principle of grant of reinstatement with full back wages, when the termination is found to be illegal is not applied mechanically in all cases. While that may be a position where services of a regular/permanent workman are terminated illegally and/or malafide and/or by way of victimization, unfair labour practice etc. However, when it comes to the case of termination of a daily wage worker and where the termination is found illegal because of procedural defect, namely in violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is consistent in taking the view in such cases reinstatement with back wages is not automatic and instead the workman should be given monetary compensation which will meet the ends of justice. Rationale for shifting in this direction is obvious.
(4 of 6)
[2025:RJ-JP:5420]
[CW-13501/2010]
management to terminate the services of that employee by paying him the retrenchment compensation. Since such a workman was working on daily wage basis and even after he is reinstated, he has no right to seek regularization (2006) 4 SCC 1). Thus when he cannot claim regularization and he has no right to continue even as a daily wage worker, no useful purpose is going to be served in reinstating such a workman and he can be given monetary compensation by the Court itself inasmuch as if he is terminated again after reinstatement, he would receive monetary compensation only in the form of retrenchment compensation and notice pay. In such a situation, giving the relief of reinstatement, that too after a long gap, would not serve any purpose.”
“3.We have heard Counsel for the parties. It is contended by the State that the approach of the Courts these days has been to not direct reinstatement but instead grant lump sum compensation; the decision in The Director, Tiger Project, Sariska, District Alwar Vs. Data Ram & Ors.- D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.406/2018 and connected cases on 31.07.2018 has been cited. It is contended that in that judgment Court had directed that broadly if someone had worked for a year, the compensation payable would be 1,00,000/-; in the case of two years, it ought to have been 2,00,000/- and in the case of three years and above, it ought to be `3,00,000/-. Counsel for the respondent argued that the labour Court itself has denied back wages. In these circumstances, the denial of reinstatement would be unfair.
[2025:RJ-JP:5420]
[CW-13501/2010]
(5 of 6)
year, in the opinion of this Court, the ends of justice would be served if lump sum compensation to the tune of 2,50,000/(approximately equivalent to two years back wages) based on minimum wages is given. This amount shall be paid to the respondent within eight weeks from today.”
[2025:RJ-JP:5420]
[CW-13501/2010]
(6 of 6)
get interest @6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of passing of the award till the date of its actual payment.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Aayush Sharma /69
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Labour Court in lieu of reinstatement was adequate for a daily wage workman terminated after approximately two years of service?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
BSNL vs. Man SinghRelied on¶22
(2012)1 SCC 558 · Who else cites this
Incharge Officer vs. Shankar ShettyRelied on¶26
(2010) 9 SCC 126 · Who else cites this
BSNL vs. BhurumalRelied on¶28
(2014) 7 SCC 177 · Who else cites this
Deputy Conservator of Forests vs. SharfuddinRelied on¶35
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.700/2018
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vijendra Mali
The Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur Rajasthan
The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Hindaun City, District Karauli Rajasthan
Anoop Kumar Dhand
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
